How about Jackson, Florida

[ronchamblin]

There was a MJ thread started several days ago, the subject of which was about changing the name of the city to somehow incorporate the word Obama, or something of that nature.  I never read it because I would never see the point of changing the name of our city toward a living politician. Perhaps the thread was a joke. I could'nt find it.
 
In any case, this made me wonder about the fact that Jacksonville is one of only two cities in the top 100 populous cities to have “… ville” at the end of it.  The other one is Louisville, which has a population of a little over 600,000, while Jacksonville has a little over 800,000. 

I recall how, on earlier threads about Jacksonville, some individuals, who perhaps had a low self-image themselves, suggested that too many Jacksonvillians had a low self-image as a whole so to speak, regarding Jacksonville itself, saying perhaps that, if it were possible, Jacksonville had a low self-image.

Hmmmmm.  How can this be?  A city, having a low self-image?  Possible I suppose, and given what I’ve sensed over the years, perhaps a probable condition with some here in our city.  It’s not an earthshaking realization of course, as I suspect the “feeling” occurs in many cities throughout the world.

But this gets back to the name, “Jacksonville”.  Is it possible for a city to be saddled with a name which perpetually cultivates, however slightly, a low self-image?  For example, look at the syllable “ville”.  Other than Louisville, which has a population of a little over 600,000, most other cities having the “ville” tacked onto the end of a name are relatively small towns.  The next one, below Louisville, is Fayetteville, having around 200,000.  After this, the cities having “ville” attached are actually small towns.

The fact that “Louisville” is pronounced quite often with such little emphasis on the “ville”, most of any negative impact of the "ville" is removed.  Jacksonville must be pronounced with the full sound of “ville”. 

In any case, my point is that “ville” implies “small” in America, as ninety-nine percent of the time the town having “ville” attached is in fact a small town.  How did we get saddled with a name which perpetually implies smallness?  And should we accept it? 

In order to remove one of the perpetually negative, although subtle, pressures within our city, I want to propose that we drop “ville”, and become Jackson, Florida.  I think there is a Jackson county in Florida, but a quick search found no city or town in Florida named Jackson.  There is of course Jackson, Mississippi. 

Names are important to one’s self-image.  Look at the names of automobiles for example.  The Cadillac “Escalade” would never be named the Cadillac Scrounge, Cadillac Bum, or Cadillac Dirt.  The people buying a Cadillac demand an uplifting name.  Imagine an auto named a Pontiac Erratic, or a Ford Fart?  Or a Dodge Defective?  How about a Jeep Fickle? How about a Chevy Cower.  Or a Toyota Descend?  Or an Oldsmobile Hell?   

My point is that we just might have been saddled with a perpetual negative to our city because of its name, quite understandable of course, as it was in fact at one time a small town.  Should we consider getting a new name, having a more positive sound?  If so, perhaps it could be Jackson.  “JACKSON” alone sounds quite profound and bold, and is much easier to say.  The single and more powerful sounding name "Jackson" is closer perhaps to the man Andrew Jackson, who was indeed a powerful sort of a man, not a “ville”.  Let’s give him his due.

If we were not alone with the “ville”, it wouldn’t be so obviously bad.  For example, if New York was “Yorkville”, and Chicago was “Chicagaville”, or San Francisco was “Friscoville”, then our “Jacksonville” would be aligned with the great cities in name too, and not only in potential.  As it is, we are aligned with the hundreds of little towns in America having endings in "ville" too. 

If this post causes a growing momentum of dissatisfaction with the name “Jacksonville”, then perhaps some might have a better suggestion for a new name, one without a “ville” tagging along at the end. 

In any case, I sense the subtle pressure downward to the spirit, and to the self-image of many Jacksonvillians, as a result of having the “ville” tagged on the end of Jackson.  What do you think?  Am I nuts? Should I try to sleep more at 3:00 a.m. instead of posting midnight thoughts on MJ?  Does anyone have a better suggestion for a new name?  We would all have to change city names on all of our letterhead.  After all, look at cities all over the world that have changed their names.  Leningrad to St. Petersburg for example.     

 
   

         

[BackinJax05]

^Leningrad was originally St. Petersburg. (Czar Peter the Great named it after himself) Then Lenin renamed it Leningrad. Then Stalin named it Stalingrad. Then it was renamed Leningrad. A few years ago it was again renamed St. Petersburg.

As for Jackson, there is already a Jackson in Mississippi. Its an even bigger dump than what people think of Jacksonville.

[I-10east]

SMH at this thread. *sigh*

[ronchamblin]

^Leningrad was originally St. Petersburg. (Czar Peter the Great named it after himself) Then Lenin renamed it Leningrad. Then Stalin named it Stalingrad. Then it was renamed Leningrad. A few years ago it was again renamed St. Petersburg.

As for Jackson, there is already a Jackson in Mississippi. Its an even bigger dump than what people think of Jacksonville.

Wrong on about three items BackinJax.  I'm almost certain the Tsar did not name the new city after himself, but he named it after St. Peter.  The Soviets named it Leningrad right after the Revolution, a name which it held until it became again St. Peterburg after the fall of the Soviets.  Stalingrad was a few hundred miles away.

The fact of there being Jackson, Mississippi is not relevant to the principles about which I'm getting at on the thread.  And I completely appose your reference to Jacksonville as a dump.  Perhaps if you feel it is a dump, as perhaps your life might be in a slump, in which case you might change your posting name to LeavingJax12, and move on.  We need positive, progressive people here in Jacksonville.  Seems as though you are wrong on a lot of things BackinJax.  Are you educated.... just asking? 

[comncense]

lol wow... harsh.

[Adam W]

^Leningrad was originally St. Petersburg. (Czar Peter the Great named it after himself) Then Lenin renamed it Leningrad. Then Stalin named it Stalingrad. Then it was renamed Leningrad. A few years ago it was again renamed St. Petersburg.

As for Jackson, there is already a Jackson in Mississippi. Its an even bigger dump than what people think of Jacksonville.

Wrong on about three items BackinJax.  I'm almost certain the Tsar did not name the new city after himself, but he named it after St. Peter.  The Soviets named it Leningrad right after the Revolution, a name which it held until it became again St. Peterburg after the fall of the Soviets.  Stalingrad was a few hundred miles away.

The fact of there being Jackson, Mississippi is not relevant to the principles about which I'm getting at on the thread.  And I completely appose your reference to Jacksonville as a dump.  Perhaps if you feel it is a dump, as perhaps your life might be in a slump, in which case you might change your posting name to LeavingJax12, and move on.  We need positive, progressive people here in Jacksonville.  Seems as though you are wrong on a lot of things BackinJax.  Are you educated.... just asking?

I know I'm being pedantic here, but the Soviets didn't change the name to Leningrad until after Lenin died. And when they did, they changed it to Leningrad from Petrograd, not St Petersburg.

[ronchamblin]

^Leningrad was originally St. Petersburg. (Czar Peter the Great named it after himself) Then Lenin renamed it Leningrad. Then Stalin named it Stalingrad. Then it was renamed Leningrad. A few years ago it was again renamed St. Petersburg.

As for Jackson, there is already a Jackson in Mississippi. Its an even bigger dump than what people think of Jacksonville.

Wrong on about three items BackinJax.  I'm almost certain the Tsar did not name the new city after himself, but he named it after St. Peter.  The Soviets named it Leningrad right after the Revolution, a name which it held until it became again St. Peterburg after the fall of the Soviets.  Stalingrad was a few hundred miles away.

The fact of there being Jackson, Mississippi is not relevant to the principles about which I'm getting at on the thread.  And I completely appose your reference to Jacksonville as a dump.  Perhaps if you feel it is a dump, as perhaps your life might be in a slump, in which case you might change your posting name to LeavingJax12, and move on.  We need positive, progressive people here in Jacksonville.  Seems as though you are wrong on a lot of things BackinJax.  Are you educated.... just asking?

I know I'm being pedantic here, but the Soviets didn't change the name to Leningrad until after Lenin died. And when they did, they changed it to Leningrad from Petrograd, not St Petersburg.

Absolutely right Adam . _ _      .   Thanks.   I'll bet you've heard the story about the fellow who was born in St. Petersburg, was a juvenile in Petrograd, matured in Leningrad, and died in St. Petersburg, all the while living in the same city.  I think the Soviets wanted to remove the religious name St. Petersburg from the city so they could begin the process of having a non-religious state. 

[thelakelander]

It's not the name "Jacksonville" that is holding this community back.  At a bird's eye level, it's our overall will to fully embrace creativity and innovation within a compact setting.

[fsujax]

^^I agree Lake. I have heard others argue this as well. What about Nashville? the "ville" doesnt seem to hold them back.

[WmNussbaum]

Ville is French for city - as in Cadillac' Coup Deville, not exactly a small car. I am willing to bet you, Ron, that you would gag at the cost to the city and private enterprise of erasing the suffix from all of the places where the city's name appears.

Frankly, I think you were either kidding when you posited this idea or else had a snootfull - not that I'm opposed to that. If we have an image problem - and I don't doubt it for a moment - the cure is not as simple as a name change.

That said, however, I would endorse getting rid of the "Bold new city of the South" tag line. We ain't that - bold, nor new - not even in just the Southeast, and not even in just Florida. Maybe we could be the Bold Old City of Northeast Florida. Or go back to River City by the Sea. Hey, how about "Jacksonville. The Redneck Rivera Ain't Got Nuthin' on Us."

[ronchamblin]

SMH at this thread. *sigh*

I-10east, if "smh" means "saddens my heart", fear not, as you will find in my post no denigrating effort on my part regarding our wonderful city on the river, but only a discussion about certain principles which I find interesting, and which might have subtle pressures upon images of our city, as might exist in its name.  In case you haven't really read the post I am not saying that there is in fact reason to feel inferior about our city, or to suggest that anyone should have an inferiority complex about our city, but only to acknowledge the eariler references to these emotions on earlier threads in MJ.

I am suggesting that the naming of something, such as automobiles and cities can be somewhat important, as the name can apply a postive or a negative to one's image of it, and therefore have subtle affects to it over many years.  I apologize if, as I've engaged the naming idea, I've given the impression that I am not proud of our city, as I am confident in its future.  A careful reading of my post should allow most to see that I am only discussing principles.

One might ask at this point, as if we might wish to treat seriously this experiment at discussing a naming principle, if the awkwardness of changing the name of our city will be offset by the rewards of doing so.  My post, while somewhat serious, is also just an exercise in principles, realizing that the real consequences or benefits of an action from it has probably not enough weight to warrant serious attention.   

I agree basically Lake and fsujax.  Again, my focus is on the idea of a name.  Surely what the people living in a city actually do is the crucial thing, if one is to have progress.  I wanted to point out the idea that there are subtle, but sometimes important, almost hidden, consequences of some "thing", such as a name in this case, the long range effect of which might be a little more important than we might suspect.

[ronchamblin]

Ville is French for city - as in Cadillac' Coup Deville, not exactly a small car. I am willing to bet you, Ron, that you would gag at the cost to the city and private enterprise of erasing the suffix from all of the places where the city's name appears.

Frankly, I think you were either kidding when you posited this idea or else had a snootfull - not that I'm opposed to that. If we have an image problem - and I don't doubt it for a moment - the cure is not as simple as a name change.

That said, however, I would endorse getting rid of the "Bold new city of the South" tag line. We ain't that - bold, nor new - not even in just the Southeast, and not even in just Florida. Maybe we could be the Bold Old City of Northeast Florida. Or go back to River City by the Sea. Hey, how about "Jacksonville. The Redneck Rivera Ain't Got Nuthin' on Us."

Correct Wm, the cure is not as simple as a name change.  However, as in many trips from A to B, there are many obstacles in the way that must be overcome, and many assets to be gathered to get one there, some being less obvious than others, almost invisible, sometimes never discovered, and thus the goal of reaching "B" is delayed, or never reached. 

But yes, at 3:00 a.m. I do have my one nightly beer.

[David]

The 'ville is such a part of the name I rarely think of it as separate piece. I never even thought about it until I met these two  French-Canadian ladies and showed them around Jax years ago. They would ask me (in their adorable French-Canadian accents) So vwhy does Jacksonville have ville at the of tha name? Jackson-city? no? Why doesn't every American city have a ville at the name?

I had no response. I just took them to the zoo.

[ronchamblin]

Thanks Wm and David.  I never thought about the origin of "ville".  I thought I knew everything.  But back to one my points.... Statistically the use of the suffix "ville" is with towns and cities having small populations, even down to the level over several hundreds. 

[finehoe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Bloody_Andrew_Jackson